Skip to comments.
LIVE THREAD: White House Correspondents Dinner
http://www.freerepublic.com ^
| April 26, 2003
Posted on 04/26/2003 6:09:21 PM PDT by Howlin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 1,161-1,171 next last
To: mystery-ak
We'll have to see; I know Ray Charles is going to perform.
201
posted on
04/26/2003 6:50:47 PM PDT
by
Howlin
(The Trojan Horse was a "gift," wasn't it?)
To: Howlin
He's an idiot; making it sound like it is the journalists RIGHT to be in the West Wing. And he supports Helen Thomas?? OMG
To: marajade
Look at President Bush's face! Gore? NOW NOW!!!!!
To: Howlin
Sort of like sitting in on a session of Congress, eh?
205
posted on
04/26/2003 6:50:57 PM PDT
by
ohioWfan
(President BUSH......Leadership, Integrity, Morality)
To: mystery-ak
Tag line:
The War is not over for me until my hubby and son's boots hit U.S. soil.
Next time you correspond with them, tell them that THIS FReeper sends his BIG THANKS ! :O)
206
posted on
04/26/2003 6:51:11 PM PDT
by
MeekOneGOP
(Bu-bye Dixie Chimps! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
To: maranatha
You mean they let them in this year, the 1st time?
207
posted on
04/26/2003 6:51:15 PM PDT
by
dts32041
(The power to tax, once conceded, has no limits; it continues until it destroys.- RAH)
To: Howlin
Did I miss it?
208
posted on
04/26/2003 6:51:21 PM PDT
by
Mo1
(I'm a monthly Donor .. You can be one too!)
To: angelwings49
I'm just wondering if there is anyone on earth more repulsive than Helen Thomas. (besides Reno)
209
posted on
04/26/2003 6:51:22 PM PDT
by
Trace21230
(Ideal MOAB test site: Paris)
To: marajade
Is this guy ever gonna shut up?
To: Howlin
Carl Cannon doesn't seem too bad
Incoming White House Correspondent's President
It would be unimaginable for a writer like Walsh to point out the truth about the farm chores debacle. A 1998 article by Carl Cannon in the Weekly Standard helps to show us why.
Cannon wrote in February 1998, as White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal was becoming a controversial public figure. Blumenthal's high profile in the Lewinsky matter was earning him considerable press attention, little of it favorable. Cannon's profile of Blumenthal was much more balanced than many other critiques that appeared at the time. He describes Blumenthal as "a cerebral Brandeis graduate" who has "written four well-received books, a play, and hundreds of high-toned political pieces for influential publications." While criticizing some of Blumenthal's past work, he points to specific work by Blumenthal that was prescient and enlightening. He quotes a string of White House officials on the strengths that Blumenthal brought to the White House. In our view, Cannon actually deserves high marks for avoiding the standard demonizing portraits of the time.
But what is so objectionable about Sidney Blumenthal? Cannon takes us there right off the bat. In his opening paragraph, he describes Blumenthal's appearance on Nightline in December 1993 to comment on the "Troopergate" stories in the Los Angeles Times and the American Spectator. Blumenthal "denounced the reports," Cannon relates, and then we get to the heart of the problem:
CANNON: It was a curious posture for a journalist: leaping to defend the White House by taking pot shots at fellow reporters.
But why exactly would that be odd? Why would it be odd for a reporter to "take pot shots" at fellow reporters if he thought those reporters were wrong? In every other academic sector, it would be the absolute norm for, let us say, Biologist A to criticize Biologist B. Indeed, that's the way biology advances. Just take a look at biology journals.
But in the world of the press corps, process stands on its earit's bad taste to criticize other journalists. The Blumenthal case is complicated somewhat by the nature of Blumenthal's pre-White House career; Cannon complains that Blumenthal's long-standing friendship with Hillary Clinton "gave [him] influence inside the White House even before he went to work there in August 1997." Cannon describes a 1993 incident, in which Blumenthal advised Mrs. Clinton to prepare a critique of Susan Schmidt's Whitewater reporting in the Washington Post. The White House should present the critique to Schmidt's editor, and then release it publicly, Blumenthal said. The idea was rejected within the White House, but Cannon quotes Susan Schmidt on the concept:
CANNON: Susan Schmidt, who has produced scoops on the Whitewater beat since 1993, says of Blumenthal, "I've never heard of anyone who purports to be a journalist giving the White House advice on how to undermine the credibility of other news organizations."
And indeed, we're quite sure that she hasn't. Is it wrong that a working journalist should advise politicians? We're not quite clear what is wrong with that if the writer's editors know about his connections (in his article, Cannon says the New Yorker felt Blumenthal's White House ties would be helpful to his work). And indeed, there were apparent problems with Schmidt's Whitewater reporting, problems that Gene Lyons discussed in Fools for Scandal (see tomorrow's DAILY HOWLER). Why shouldn't journalists and politicians feel free to discuss apparent flaws with journalists' work?
But at any rate, it is quite clear that a hidden rule says journalists don't critique other journalists. It explains why no one ever said a word about the remarkable farm chores flap; it explains why nothing is ever said about even the most egregious press misconduct. It also explains the gruesome work one routinely meets in the national press. There is no penalty for press misconduct. The resultspredictable, given human natureare in plain view every day.
211
posted on
04/26/2003 6:51:27 PM PDT
by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
(CCCP = clinton, chiraq, cristein, and putin = stalin wannabes)
To: dubyaismypresident
LOL!
212
posted on
04/26/2003 6:51:29 PM PDT
by
Howlin
(The Trojan Horse was a "gift," wasn't it?)
To: Howlin
Darn.
Not on the schedule for the west coast feed on Dish Network.
213
posted on
04/26/2003 6:51:40 PM PDT
by
Publius6961
(Californians are as dumm as a sack of rocks)
To: ohioWfan
Sort of like sitting in on a session of Congress, eh? More like root canal.
To: RedBloodedAmerican
"Al Gore is sitting in his trailer"Get out of Cheyne's trailer just doesn't sound right.
215
posted on
04/26/2003 6:51:52 PM PDT
by
AGreatPer
(Support Our Troops or get the hell out of the USA.)
To: hole_n_one; Howlin
Maybe they stuck her there to hide her behind the flowers. But it does look like she bathed. So thats nice.
To: Howlin; hole_n_one
Keep the comments and pictures coing...my husband is insisting on watching that stupid "Helen of Troy" series and I have NO TV!!!
To: hole_n_one
I hopee those poor flowers are artificial....
218
posted on
04/26/2003 6:52:36 PM PDT
by
mikrofon
(What we really need to see more of in people is not "wellness", but GOODness...)
To: Mo1
No, it's barely started and has been boring so far!
219
posted on
04/26/2003 6:52:38 PM PDT
by
Howlin
(The Trojan Horse was a "gift," wasn't it?)
To: Trace21230
I'm just wondering if there is anyone on earth more repulsive than Helen Thomas. (besides Reno) As repulsive as Reno is, Helen Thomas is more so IMHO
220
posted on
04/26/2003 6:52:40 PM PDT
by
NeoCaveman
(I mean if I had to pick.... barf)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200, 201-220, 221-240 ... 1,161-1,171 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson